Creatures with DR versus Magical Weapons

[Caliban]

Where does it state this? You can't really apply all the rules for an enhancement bonus to a natural enhancement bonus when they aren't the same.

Um, where does it say that a natural enhancement bonus is not the same as an enhancement bonus?

I can see where it says that a natural enhancement bonus is not the same a magical enhancement bonus, but when it refers to just an "enhancement bonus" it seems to be referring to either type of enhancement bonus.

Right. So we know that adamantine does not possess a true enhancement bonus, and for one reason (possibly two):

1) It does not bypass DR.
2) It does not receive the increase in hardness and hit points.

You still haven't shown anything that specifically supports your second point.

I still disagree. I think the context of an enhancement bonus in Strike a Weapon is referring to a magical enhancmenent bonus, as it specifically refers to weapons with an enhancment bonus receiving +1 to their hardness and hit points, and I am not aware of anything stating that adamantine receives such a bonus.

Adamantite weapons have an enhancement bonus.

The statement in the PHB simply says that weapons with an "enhancement bonus" get the hardness/hit point increase, it doesn't differentiate between a magical or a natural enhancement bonus.

To simply say that it is enough of an enhancement bonus to count doesn't cut it, as that is the same argument that was put forth by many here for explaining why an adamantine weapon bypasses DR, and it was incorrect. The argument was based on "Well, the word 'enhancement' is in there, and that's enough", only it's not enough.

It would have been enough if it hadn't stated in the DR section that magical weapons are needed. It didn't state it very clearly, but it did state it. And it was later clarified by the Sage and the MM2.

A natural enhancement bonus and a magical enhancement bonus are not the same.

No arguement there. Magical enhancement bonuses allow a weapon to bypass DR and be enchanted with weapon special abilities.

As far as I can tell, those are the only differences between a magical an natural enhancement bonus.

They are very similar, and do pretty much the same thing, except when it comes to things that specifically require magic.

Why would it require magic to increase the hardness and hit points of a weapon? Adamantite already does this, why wouldn't it's enhancement bonus also give an small extra increase?

Granted, it took the release of the MMII to further explain what had been stated in many Sage replys, that the natural enhancement bonus on adamantine is not treated identically to a magical enhancement bonus. I think applying the bonus to hardness and hit points, without it being stated that it should receive it, is the same folly that many made before.

That's just my opinion though.

Pretty much.

I'm sure he'd say the same thing, but Monte and I rarely agree on anything. He tends to make rash rulings just like I do.

So you wouldn't accept the ruling of two out of three of the core rule game designers?

You accept that the Sage was correct on the original clarification about needing a magical enhancement bonus to bypass a creatures DR, but you don't accept that he's correct in stating that it's not needed to sunder a weapon?

 

[dkilgo]

Because it is not stated in the rules.



I didn't.



Primarily because if you begin to track weapon wear and tear due to striking other weapons, it is only logical to do so on a general basis. Then you have to start tracking wear and tear on everything, from your helm to your shoes, and its more work than its worth.

But, it adds something to the world that might be needed.

 

[dkilgo]

I think that you believe that an adamantine weapon would not harm a +1 sword because you are implying that the rules imply that a magical weapon is needed. Nowhere have I read any such thing. I believe they gave you the example of the magical weapons to illustrate what would be needed in that particular case. All this was is an example and an illustration, nothing more. It is not sayig that you have to have magical weapons to harm magical weapons. They gave you an example, and you are thinking that they are implying one thing when they could very well be implying something totally different. The rule does not cover the fact that some natural occuring materials give an enhancement bonus. So, for that matter, you can not imply that they can not affect magical weapons because it is not stated. Well, think about this, it is not stated otherwise?

I am not saying you are right, and I am not saying that you are wrong. Just pointing out what I see as a flaw in you thinking. If in fact that is what it is. If it is something totally different, then I appologize.

 

[kreynolds]

Um, where does it say that a natural enhancement bonus is not the same as an enhancement bonus?

Under DR in MMII. DR in MMI did not spefically state that a weapon needed a magical enhancement bonus, and many people assumed a natural enhancement bonus was enough. We now know otherwise. They are different.

I can see where it says that a natural enhancement bonus is not the same a magical enhancement bonus, but when it refers to just an "enhancement bonus" it seems to be referring to either type of enhancement bonus.

That's dependant upon whether or not adamantine does in fact get the hardness and hit point increase from its natural enhancement bonus. If it does, then I would have to agree with all of you, as that would make sense.

You still haven't shown anything that specifically supports your second point.

Neither have you, so we're even. I already stated that I'm not aware of anything that says it receives the hardness and hit point increase from its natural enhancement bonus as a magical weapon with a magic enhancement bonus would.

The statement in the PHB simply says that weapons with an "enhancement bonus" get the hardness/hit point increase, it doesn't differentiate between a magical or a natural enhancement bonus.

The DMG says the very same thing in the Magic Items chapter at the beginning of the Magic Weapons section. Adamantine does not possess a magical enhancement bonus. It goes away in an Antimagic Field. To assume that it receives an increase in hardness and hit points is just as risky as it was for many people to assume that a natural enhancement bonus can overcome DR simply because the word "enhancement" is in there.

It would have been enough if it hadn't stated in the DR section that magical weapons are needed. It didn't state it very clearly, but it did state it.

I agree that it wasn't well defined, but from many people's persepctive, it was clear that you didn't always need a magic weapon to overcome DR. Just "usually". I think that was the biggest point of confusion because it seemed to leave a window open for adamantine.

Pretty much.

I find your argument to be only your opinion as well, but that's the point of a discussion. That was also rude. We are having a civil conversation here, and I would like to keep it that way.

So you wouldn't accept the ruling of two out of three of the core rule game designers?

If adamantine weapons receive a hardness and hit point increase from their not-magical enhancement bonus, then yes.

 

[kreynolds]

But, it adds something to the world that might be needed.

You're right. It might be kinda cool, provided it wasn't too complicated to deal with or too time consuming to use, but there's also a place for that.

 

[kreynolds]

Just pointing out what I see as a flaw in you thinking.

Fair enough, but your assumptions are not entirely correct. I base my opinion on the fact that a natural enhancement bonus and magical enhancement bonus are not the same. Making the assumption that one should automatically be able to do the same thing as the other, or that one should automatically receive the same benefits as the other, when neither are specifically stated, is a risky assumption, and one that has previously been proven to be false.

 

[dkilgo]

Fair enough, but your assumptions are not entirely correct. I base my opinion on the fact that a natural enhancement bonus and magical enhancement bonus are not the same. Making the assumption that one should automatically be able to do the same thing as the other, or that one should automatically receive the same benefits as the other, when neither are specifically stated, is a risky assumption, and one that has previously been proven to be false.

True, and I think that I have just pissed off Umption.

My 2 cents.

Good I have some change?

 

[Caliban]

Fair enough, but your assumptions are not entirely correct. I base my opinion on the fact that a natural enhancement bonus and magical enhancement bonus are not the same. Making the assumption that one should automatically be able to do the same thing as the other, or that one should automatically receive the same benefits as the other, when neither are specifically stated, is a risky assumption, and one that has previously been proven to be false.

They are not identical, but they are both very similar.

Both give an attack and damage bonus. One is more effective against magical creatures (i.e. bypasses DR), while the other remains effective in non-magical environments.

One allows magical abilities to be added, the other does not.

Other than those three distinctions, they seem to be pretty much the same. The text in the PHB doesn't seem to require a magical bonus for the increased hardness and hit points, or the ability to sunder a magical weapon.

To me, it seems to indicate that either type of enhancement bonus will do for the purpose of sundering a magical weapon or increasing a weapon's hit points/hardness, just as either type of enhancement bonus will increase your attack or damage bonus. And since the game designers seem to agree with that viewpoint, I consider it to be the most likely one to be correct.

Your stance that your viewpoint is more valid, when neither the text nor the game designers directly support it seems less likely to be correct.

Have a merry christmas.

 

[dkilgo]

They are not identical, but they are both very similar.

Both give an attack and damage bonus. One is more effective against magical creatures (i.e. bypasses DR), while the other remains effective in non-magical environments.

One allows magical abilities to be added, the other does not.

Other than those three distinctions, they seem to be pretty much the same. The text in the PHB doesn't seem to require a magical bonus for the increased hardness and hit points, or the ability to sunder a magical weapon.

To me, it seems to indicate that either type of enhancement bonus will do for the purpose of sundering a magical weapon or increasing a weapon's hit points/hardness, just as either type of enhancement bonus will increase your attack or damage bonus. And since the game designers seem to agree with that viewpoint, I consider it to be the most likely one to be correct.

Your stance that your viewpoint is more valid, when neither the text nor the game designers directly support it seems less likely to be correct.

Have a merry christmas.

Very good point. I agree with all that you said here.

 

[kreynolds]

To me, it seems to indicate that either type of enhancement bonus will do for the purpose of sundering a magical weapon or increasing a weapon's hit points/hardness, just as either type of enhancement bonus will increase your attack or damage bonus. And since the game designers seem to agree with that viewpoint, I consider it to be the most likely one to be correct.

If the designers have ever stated that a natural enhancement bonus increases the hardness and hit points of a weapon, then this is news to me. Do you happen to have a referrence? I'd be interested in seeing their interpretation, or ruling.

Your stance that your viewpoint is more valid, when neither the text nor the game designers directly support it seems less likely to be correct.

My stance being "more valid" than what? Than the designers opinions? Yours? All of the above? I just want to make sure I don't misunderstand you.

However, your assertion that my opinion isn't as valid as the text isn't very relevant. The text is what is in question here. Your opinions are having more of an impact on my viewpoint than the text, primarily because the text itself doesn't provide any clarification, and it doesn't directly support your own viewpoint either. It only leaves everything open to interpretation. If the text was that clear, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Furthermore, if the text was that clear, this problem would have been solved after your first, maybe second post, as you are very good at remembering the specifics in the rules. The mere fact that you have no more concrete evidence to provide than myself only further proves how non-specific the PH text is.

I think its just as likely that either one of us is right on this, so please don't think that I'm claiming you are wrong, because I'm not. I see your viewpoint as a solid interpretation, but no more or less as solid as mine. I just prefer mine, is all.

I'm not trying to be confrontational, I promise. I'm just defending my viewpoint here.

Hope you had a good holiday too.